Question of the day
Wednesday, Jun 16, 2010 - Posted by Rich Miller
* The setup…
Smokers in Kane County can breathe easy now that county board members snuffed out a call for a ban on outdoor smoking Tuesday.
The county began researching a potential ban after a private citizen from Aurora approached the county board’s development committee last month. Stacy Blaszak told the committee members she has a respiratory condition and outdoor smoking often impinges on her right and need to breathe as well as compromises her health and the health of babies and pets.
County staffers spent the last month researching any precedent for an outdoor smoking ban. At the most, communities have addressed the issue by inserting a clause into their public nuisance laws to address any unusual circumstances involving smoking, the staff reported. Development Director Mark VanKerkhoff said even organizations with missions to curb smoking said they only get a few of inquiries a year about how to institute an outdoor or residential smoking ban.
* The Question: Could you support a ban on smoking outdoors in your town? Explain.
- South Side Mike - Wednesday, Jun 16, 10 @ 12:16 pm:
No, I could not support such a ban. I hate smoking. I support smoking bans for bars and restaurants and all public indoors facilities, but banning people from smoking outside (other than x feet from entrances) goes too far.
If you want to make smoking illegal, then lobby for it to become illegal. But otherwise, how could the illegal-to-smoke-outside law be enforced? Is it okay if you’re on your porch? What if you’re indoors but have a window open? At what point does the potential for smoke to possibly drift to your nose become small enough that it’s okay? Enough is enough, and my only criticism of Kane Cty’s board is that it took them a month to decide to abandon the issue.
- Greg B. - Wednesday, Jun 16, 10 @ 12:16 pm:
A little bit too Orwellian for my tastes. The United States spans a continent. I think we can find enough fresh air to accommodate pretty much anyone.
- John Bambenek - Wednesday, Jun 16, 10 @ 12:17 pm:
If a municipality wants to ban outdoor smoking, I’d support it if and only if they also ban the sale of cigarettes in the same municipality. They shouldn’t get the revenue from the sale of products they don’t allow to be used.
- Jake from Elwood - Wednesday, Jun 16, 10 @ 12:25 pm:
I am not a smoker and I was in favor of banning smoking inside public buildings. But this request was out of line. There is this layer that surrounds our earth called the atmosphere. A smoker creates a one-centimeter flame for the duration of the smoke. Even if there are several one-centimeter flames congested in an outdoor tavern patio or the like, the cigarette smell is easily dissapated. Kane County is right and Ms. Blaszak should consider purchasing a sterile 8-foot plastic bubble which she could retreat to if someone lights up.
- Betsy - Wednesday, Jun 16, 10 @ 12:29 pm:
I am not a smoker. No, I could not support a ban on smoking outside provided it’s not at a baseball game where I am sitting right behind the smoker (and I think most places have banned that by now).
Unrelated question for Rich — I couldn’t find an iPhone app for CapFax. Is there one? I presume not, but would be great if there is. Safari is slow to check the blog from the iPhone. If there is another way to do so, I would appreciate hearing how. Thanks.
- Matt - Wednesday, Jun 16, 10 @ 12:33 pm:
Hell no. I can see the point, but come on… What’s next, a ban on smoggy vehicle emissions? Cooking pungent foods? No factories?
I am a smoker, and I take steps to not smoke near others and to not let young children watch me smoking. We can do it in a responsible way.
- Skeeter - Wednesday, Jun 16, 10 @ 12:33 pm:
No, because it would interfere with one of my favorite passive-aggressive behaviors: Leading my dog to relieve himself where smokers congregate.
- Smokey the Bear - Wednesday, Jun 16, 10 @ 12:33 pm:
This is great, I fully support.
Now can we please ban smoking in private homes and cars where children are present? They are the most vulnerable to this, and least able to protect themselves from it.
- grand old partisan - Wednesday, Jun 16, 10 @ 12:37 pm:
No, I wouldn’t support this ban. However, I would actually find it to be less objectionable than the current bans for privately owned indoor establishments.
- Irish - Wednesday, Jun 16, 10 @ 12:51 pm:
No I would not support it. Before a government entity came to me with such a proposal they better be darn sure they have eliminated emissions from all businesses, mass transportation, vehicles, campfires, wood stoves, etc. This is another case of where one radical individual is trying to impinge the enjoyment of many. I smoke, If you are offended by that or it affects you adversely then don’t come around me. I would actually rather smoke in peace and quiet than visit with you.
- Skeeter - Wednesday, Jun 16, 10 @ 12:55 pm:
GOP has a point. Why should The Government be telling me that I can’t have a private indoor establishment full of carcinogens? We also need to bring back cheap insulation.
If I want to expose my employees to tobacco or asbestos that’t up to me. If my employees don’t like it they can go work someplace else.
- downhereforyears - Wednesday, Jun 16, 10 @ 1:18 pm:
Absolutely not, if you want to prevent smoking totally….just outlaw the possession of tobacco products. The notion that any unit of government could pass such a law is going way overboard. But if they do I would also like them to look into outlawing really ugly people…..they hurt my eyes.
- Cincinnatus - Wednesday, Jun 16, 10 @ 1:22 pm:
It is not the government’s job to protect EVERYONE from EVERY POSSIBLE harm that comes their way, IMHO. If this mindset takes hold any more than it already has, the government will ban just about everything, from plastic sporks to guns and everything in between.
It is time to have a serious discussion about the role of government in society. If we don’t start laying down some limits, government will grow, regulations will grow with the accompanying loss of freedom, and deficits will sore even more than they have already.
- Vote Quimby! - Wednesday, Jun 16, 10 @ 1:23 pm:
==health of babies and pets==
If I ever see someone blowing smoke directly into an infant or puppy’s face, I’ll take care of it. Until then, you force us to smoke outside—deal with it!
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jun 16, 10 @ 1:25 pm:
Let’s stick to the question, please.
- dupage dan - Wednesday, Jun 16, 10 @ 1:33 pm:
STB,
Just how do you propose to enforce a ban on smoking in private residences? Too much.
I do not support such a ban on smoking outdoors. A law enforcement nightmare. The liklihood of some action by a private citizen causing some other private citizen discomfort in public could lead to some amazing new laws to prevent such offense. I hardly think that the momentary contact with cigarette smoke would have some lasting effect on a person.
BTW - I am a “reformed” smoker and find second hand smoke unpleasant. I find alot of other things unpleasant but I am a big boy and I deal with it.
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Jun 16, 10 @ 1:33 pm:
No, overkill and too Big Brother. They are still driving cars and trucks outside, right?
- WRMNpolitics - Wednesday, Jun 16, 10 @ 2:09 pm:
This is an prime example of the Kane County Board attempting to create legislation for a problem that doesn’t exist with a remedy that is not enforceable.
What can you expect from a board that has 26 member with little to do and time on their hand.
- really?? - Wednesday, Jun 16, 10 @ 2:22 pm:
I think businesses should be allowed to determine how far away smokers should be from the entrances. For example, hospitals should have a designated area outside where smoking is prohibited. Also, smokers should be able to dipsose of their butts appropriately, not just leave them all over the lawn or sidewalk, but a general ban overall? NO
- Cincinnatus - Wednesday, Jun 16, 10 @ 2:40 pm:
really?? you said:
“I think businesses should be allowed to determine how far away smokers should be from the entrances.”
Would you extend that to private businesses establishing whether or not their privately owned establishment, in privately owned buildings, serving private individuals who may choose whether or not to use the establishment, and who have employees that elect to work in the establishment, allow smoking inside their building?
I say yes, but too many busybodies disagree. Always remember, politicians know best what the private individual should do.
- Pelon - Wednesday, Jun 16, 10 @ 3:10 pm:
I would support a ban on smoking that covers all public property (both indoors and outdoors). Smoking clearly annoys a large percentage of the population. We restrict the playing of loud music for that reason, so why not smoking?
To balance that, I’d support eliminating all smoking bans on private property. If people don’t like smoking in a bar, restaurant, business, etc., they don’t have to go there. They don’t always have that option with public facilities.
- Ghost - Wednesday, Jun 16, 10 @ 3:33 pm:
I would oppose this as it is unreasonable restrictive.
Seems simpler to give the smokers unlimited free cigarettes and let the problem smoke itself away
- Excessively Rabid - Wednesday, Jun 16, 10 @ 4:12 pm:
No. Smokers have a right to smoke somewhere. What I would support is a ban that would apply to outdoor areas of businesses. This would include outdoor beer gardens. That said, there is a limit to how far you can go in regulating (and taxing) a habit that’s not illegal, and we’re about there.
- Cindy Lou - Wednesday, Jun 16, 10 @ 4:30 pm:
No. While my smoking is way way down and I consider it a occassional thing now, my little village allows leaf burning… choke, choke, gag…several days a week. Talk about a village uproar when they wanted to ban the burning completely (I did and could easily support the leaf burn ban, but it did not pass).
I don’t mind smoke-free areas such as the signs one sees as ’smoke-free grounds’ popping up around my area. I can survive with that. I also would not mind in the least if someone politely asked me to not smoke around them (ex: health reasons), this I find not offensive at all and a matter of respect for someone other than myself. It will also not surprise me if I see ’smoke-free area’ signs posted around the village square this weekend during town festival. I consider it no more difference nor infringing upon one’s rights than like at HS football games on school grounds. I can live with these types of limited restrictions, but not total outside bans.
- Park - Wednesday, Jun 16, 10 @ 6:26 pm:
No. This is classic silliness. Shame on the Kane County Board for not dismissing it out of hand. There will always be people coming in with crazy ideas…like the Lake County animal rights people who want to give deer birth control pills instead of just getting rid of them. Lawmakers in this position have to learn how to just say ‘no, next agenda item’.
full disclosure: quit 3 years ago, glad you can’t smoke inside anywhere but don’t mind the smell outside.
- HatShopGirl - Wednesday, Jun 16, 10 @ 7:47 pm:
I wish outdoor smokers would stop leaving those nasty “butts” all over the place. I would impose a hefty fine on anyone who leaves ‘butts’ when they smoke outdoors. The fine could include the cost of tracking-down the litter-bug through DNA testing the ‘butts’.
In general, if done discretely, outdoor smoking should not be banned. It’s a filthy habit and most young people eschew this vice.
DuPage Dan, I was an occassional smoker. If my current boyfriend smoked, then I would smoke one of his cigarettes. I never initiated the smoking. I guess I’m not an addictive personality.
- HatShopGirl - Wednesday, Jun 16, 10 @ 7:51 pm:
Oops! Sorry Rich. I do NOT support the outdoor smoking ban in general. If it specifically targets public lands, government buildings and services, like schools, and the entrance/exits where smokers congregate and block the flow of pedestrian traffic.
Ban the litterbug’s butts!
- Justice - Wednesday, Jun 16, 10 @ 9:14 pm:
Yes….in all Gulf Coast states. If we aren’t careful they will blow things up due to the oil fumes. I for one do not want any more grits coming up this way.
As to banning outdoor smoking here, well, only under the ‘no smoking on this property’ signs at Memorial Hospital.
- Festus Hagen - Thursday, Jun 17, 10 @ 8:24 am:
I can no more support an outdoor smoking ban than I can support a law that requires the wearing of a hemet when driving a motorcycle. I guess that I have a hang-up on the seemingly ever-increasing government intervention into people’s lives. I realize the wearing of helmuts and the banning of smoking are in my own best interests as a Illinois taxpayer since the burden of other’s stupidity ultimately falls on me as a taxpayer (motorcycle injuries and lung cancer victims without health & hospitalization or without financial means ultimately lay the financial burden of their hospital health care onto the taxpayer’s shoulders).Perhaps if smokers were willing to “sign off” on the financial support of the other taxpayers or agree to be refused medical treatment at hospital facilities if they were unable to financially pay for their own medical care, then the other taxpayers would possibly be more open to their right to choose to smoke and harm their health.
- Undercover - Thursday, Jun 17, 10 @ 8:33 am:
I don’t support an outdoor smoking ban, but I am sick to death of having to walk through a cloud of smoke upon entering many public places.
- Skeeter - Thursday, Jun 17, 10 @ 8:47 am:
Festus,
Let me give you some insight.
The smoking bans are not protecting the smoker. They are about protecting the people EXPOSED to the smoke.
It is nothing more than a restriction on asbestos. You don’t expose office workers to asbestos and you don’t expose bar workers to smoke.
So stop with
- Sueann - Thursday, Jun 17, 10 @ 9:50 am:
Tell me, when smoking is eradicated in Illinois who will be taxed to make up for the lost cigarette tax revenue?
- Ren McCormack - Thursday, Jun 17, 10 @ 11:43 am:
What’s next? No dancing or playing loud music?